News
SpaceX’s orbital Starship launch debut may be pushed to 2022 by slow FAA reviews
In a rare sign of material progress, SpaceX and the FAA have finally released what is known as a draft environmental assessment (EA) of the company’s South Texas Starship launch plans.
Set to be the largest and most powerful rocket in spaceflight history when it first begins orbital launches, the process of acquiring permission to launch Starship and its Super Heavy booster out of the wetlands of the South Texas coast was never going to be easy. The Boca Chica site SpaceX ultimately settled on for its first private launch facilities – initially meant for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy but later dedicated to BFR (now Starship) – is simultaneously surrounded by sensitive coastal habitats populated by several threatened or endangered species and situated mere miles as the crow flies from a city whose temporary population oscillates from a few thousand to tens of thousands.
Reception and analysis of the draft and its timing have been mixed. On one hand, SpaceX’s draft EA – completed with oversight from the FAA and help from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) – gives a number of reasons for optimism. In a sign that SpaceX is taking a pragmatic approach to the inevitable environmental review and launch license approval hurdles standing in front of orbital South Texas Starship launches, the company has actually pursued what is known as a “programmatic environmental assessment” (PEA).
Most importantly, that means that SpaceX’s Starbase PEA – if approved – will be more like a foundation or stepping stone that should make it easier to start small and methodically expand the scope and nature of the company’s plans for Boca Chica. Along those lines, as part of Starbase’s first dedicated environmental assessment, SpaceX has proposed a maximum of 23 flight operations annually while Starship is still in the development phase, including up to 20 suborbital Starship test flights and 3 orbital launches (or Super Heavy hops). Once SpaceX has worked out enough kinks for slightly more confident Starship operations, the company would enter an “operational phase” that would allow for as many as five suborbital Starship launches and five orbital Starship launches, as well as ship and booster landings back on land after all 10 possible launches.
In other words, SpaceX’s initial draft PEA is extremely conservative, requesting permission for what amounts to a bare minimum concept of operations for orbital Starship launches. At a maximum of 3-5 orbital launches per year, a PEA and subsequent launch license approved as-is would likely give SpaceX just enough slack to perform basic Earth orbit launches and no more than one or two orbital refilling tests per year. However, as an example, a five-launch maximum would almost entirely prevent SpaceX from launching Starship to Mars, the Moon, and maybe even high-energy Earth orbits without using all of its annual launch allotments on a single mission.
Perhaps most importantly, the draft PEA as proposed would unequivocally prevent SpaceX from performing the NASA Human Lander System (HLS) Moon landings it received an almost $3 billion contract to complete. Each HLS Starship Moon landing is expected to require anywhere from 10-16 launches to deliver a depot ship, HLS lander, and ~1200 tons of propellant to orbit. However, in terms of SpaceX’s prospects of developing Starship as quickly as possible, that’s actually a good thing. Above all else, SpaceX’s slimmed-down draft PEA should be far easier for the FAA to approve than a PEA pursuing permission for Starship’s ultimate ambitions – dozens to hundreds of launches annually – from the beginning. In theory, with this barebones PEA approved, SpaceX would then be able to build off the foundation with additional environmental assessments – like, for example, of expanding Starship’s maximum launch cadence.
Of course, SpaceX first needs the FAA turn this first draft PEA into a favorable environmental assessment (not a guarantee) before any of the above starts to matter. Based on the content of the draft itself and associated appendixes, SpaceX appears to have a decent shot at receiving a “finding of no significant impact (FONSI)” or “mitigated FONSI” determination. However, SpaceX began the process of creating that draft as far back as mid-2020, followed by an FAA announcement in November 2020. The implication is that the FAA managed to drag out a draft release process that some have estimated should have taken 3-4 months into an arduous 10-15 month ordeal.
Combined with the uphill battle it’s starting to look like SpaceX will have to wage for an orbital Starship launch license in South Texas, it’s looking increasingly likely that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase will be technically ready for orbital launch tests well before the FAA is ready to approve or license them. Barring delays, the public now has until mid-October to read and comment on SpaceX’s draft PEA, after which the FAA and SpaceX will review those comments and hopefully turn the draft into a completed review. Even if the FAA were to somehow take just two months to return a best-case FONSI, clearing Starbase of environmental launch hurdles, it’s hard to imagine that the agency could then turn around and approve an orbital Starship launch license – or even a one-off experimental permit – in the last few weeks of 2021.
Ultimately, that means that nothing short of a minor miracle is likely to prevent the FAA’s environmental review and licensing delays from directly delaying Starship’s orbital launch debut. There is at least a chance that Starship, Super Heavy, and Starbase’s orbital launch site wont be ready for orbital launches by the end of the year, but it’s increasingly difficult to imagine that all three won’t be proof tested, qualified, and ready for action just a month or two from now. For the time being, we’ll just have to wait and see where the cards fall.
News
Tesla Supercharger left offline as Swedish court backs union strike
The completed Supercharger has been stalled for nearly two years amid Tesla’s conflict with the IF Metall union in Sweden.
Tesla’s Supercharger station in Ljungby, Sweden will remain without power after a Swedish administrative court rejected the company’s appeal to force a grid connection to the site. The completed Supercharger has been stalled for nearly two years amid Tesla’s conflict with the IF Metall union in Sweden.
The court ruled that the ongoing union strike against Tesla Sweden is valid grounds for the Supercharger’s connection delay, as noted in an Allt Om Elbil report.
The Ljungby Supercharger was one of the first charging stations that were denied grid access after IF Metall launched its strike against Tesla Sweden in late 2023. Electricians at local grid operator Ljungby Energinät were pulled into a sympathy strike by the Seko union, preventing the site’s connection.
Tesla reported both Ljungby Energinät and Gävle Energi Elnät AB to the Swedish Energy Market Inspectorate, arguing that grid operators failed to meet their legal obligation to provide connection to the location within a reasonable time frame.
The regulator ruled that the strike represented a valid exception under Swedish law, however, citing constitutional protections for industrial actions.
Tesla responded by appealing to the Administrative Court in Linköping, claiming it had the right to connection within a reasonable period, generally no more than two years. Tesla Sweden also argued that the country’s Electricity Act conflicts with EU law. The court rejected those arguments.
“The Administrative Court today finds that granting the company’s request in practice applies to the same thing as the blockade and that it would mean that the blockade would be ineffective.
“Such a decision would contradict the principle that labor market conflicts should be resolved to the greatest extent possible by the labor market parties, not by the state. The industrial action is also constitutionally protected,” Chief Councilor Ronny Idstrand stated.
The court also concluded that the Electricity Act does not conflict with EU regulations and that special reasons justified the extended delay.
While the ruling was unanimous, Tesla Sweden may appeal the decision to a higher administrative court.
News
Tesla China exports 50,644 vehicles in January, up sharply YoY
The figure also places Tesla China second among new energy vehicle exporters for the month, behind BYD.
Tesla China exported 50,644 vehicles in January, as per data released by the China Passenger Car Association (CPCA).
This marks a notable increase both year-on-year and month-on-month for the American EV maker’s Giga Shanghai-built Model 3 and Model Y. The figure also places Tesla China second among new energy vehicle exporters for the month, behind BYD.
The CPCA’s national passenger car market analysis report indicated that total New Energy Vehicle exports reached 286,000 units in January, up 103.6% from a year earlier. Battery electric vehicles accounted for 65% of those exports.
Within that total, Tesla China shipped 50,644 vehicles overseas. By comparison, exports of Giga Shanghai-built Model 3 and Model Y units totaled 29,535 units in January last year and just 3,328 units in December.
This suggests that Tesla China’s January 2026 exports were roughly 1.7 times higher than the same month a year ago and more than 15 times higher than December’s level, as noted in a TechWeb report.
BYD still led the January 2026 export rankings with 96,859 new energy passenger vehicles shipped overseas, though it should be noted that the automaker operates at least nine major production facilities in China, far outnumering Tesla. Overall, BYD’s factories in China have a domestic production capacity for up to 5.82 million units annually as of 2024.
Tesla China followed in second place, ahead of Geely, Chery, Leapmotor, SAIC Motor, and SAIC-GM-Wuling, each of which exported significant volumes during the month. Overall, new energy vehicles accounted for nearly half of China’s total passenger vehicle exports in January, hinting at strong overseas demand for electric cars produced in the country.
China remains one of Tesla China’s most important markets. Despite mostly competing with just two vehicles, both of which are premium priced, Tesla China is still proving quite competitive in the domestic electric vehicle market.
News
Tesla adds a new feature to Navigation in preparation for a new vehicle
After CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this week that the Semi’s mass production processes were scheduled for later this year, the company has been making various preparations as it nears manufacturing.
Tesla has added a new feature to its Navigation and Supercharger Map in preparation for a new vehicle to hit the road: the Semi.
After CEO Elon Musk announced earlier this week that the Semi’s mass production processes were scheduled for later this year, the company has been making various preparations as it nears manufacturing.
Elon Musk confirms Tesla Semi will enter high-volume production this year
One of those changes has been the newly-released information regarding trim levels, as well as reports that Tesla has started to reach out to customers regarding pricing information for those trims.
Now, Tesla has made an additional bit of information available to the public in the form of locations of Megachargers, the infrastructure that will be responsible for charging the Semi and other all-electric Class 8 vehicles that hit the road.
Tesla made the announcement on the social media platform X:
We put Semi Megachargers on the map
→ https://t.co/Jb6p7OPXMi pic.twitter.com/stwYwtDVSB
— Tesla Semi (@tesla_semi) February 10, 2026
Although it is a minor development, it is a major indication that Tesla is preparing for the Semi to head toward mass production, something the company has been hinting at for several years.
Nevertheless, this, along with the other information that was released this week, points toward a significant stride in Tesla’s progress in the Semi project.
Now that the company has also worked toward completion of the dedicated manufacturing plant in Sparks, Nevada, there are more signs than ever that the vehicle is finally ready to be built and delivered to customers outside of the pilot program that has been in operation for several years.
For now, the Megachargers are going to be situated on the West Coast, with a heavy emphasis on routes like I-5 and I-10. This strategy prioritizes major highways and logistics hubs where freight traffic is heaviest, ensuring coverage for both cross-country and regional hauls.
California and Texas are slated to have the most initially, with 17 and 19 sites, respectively. As the program continues to grow, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Washington, New York, and Nevada will have Megacharger locations as well.
For now, the Megachargers are available in Lathrop, California, and Sparks, Nevada, both of which have ties to Tesla. The former is the location of the Megafactory, and Sparks is where both the Tesla Gigafactory and Semifactory are located.
Tesla Supercharger left offline as Swedish court backs union strike
Tesla China exports 50,644 vehicles in January, up sharply YoY
